Top 10 AI Prompts and Use Cases and in the Government Industry in Santa Rosa

California's local governments are racing to capture AI's efficiency while hardening the guardrails - nowhere more clearly than Sonoma County, which on September 10, 2024 adopted a deliberate AI policy that permits generative tools for everyday tasks (writing emails, summarizing records, debugging code) but bars AI-driven decision‑making and the submission of confidential data; the policy even warns that AI can “memorize or learn” from inputs, so prompts should be treated as potentially public records (Sonoma County artificial intelligence policy (Policy 9‑6)).

This guide translates those rules into ten practical prompts and use cases tailored to Santa Rosa agencies and reflects trends in county-level governance identified by the Center for Democracy & Technology (Center for Democracy & Technology report: AI in Local Government).

For staff who must balance oversight with hands-on skills, Nucamp's AI Essentials for Work - 15 weeks of prompt-writing and workplace AI training - offers a pragmatic pathway to safe, productive adoption (Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus).

Policy Item	Details
Approval Date	September 10, 2024
Permitted Uses	Emails, reports, spreadsheet calcs, coding, summarizing, drafting policies
Prohibitions	No AI for hiring/decisions; do not input confidential/PII
Key Requirements	Fact-check outputs; disclose AI contributions; conduct vendor due diligence

“We are on the cusp of the artificial intelligence revolution, and we understand the opportunities we have to harness this technology to realize efficiency and cost-savings for the public… At the same time, there is a lot that we still don't know about AI, which is why we need to proceed with caution in a secure and ethical manner.” - Supervisor David Rabbitt

Methodology - How We Built These Top 10 Prompts and Use Cases: each prompt was forged directly from Sonoma County's Administrative Policy 9‑6, translating the policy's guardrails - no confidential inputs, mandatory fact‑checking, transparency about AI contributions, and required vendor due diligence - into short, task‑specific templates for emails, summaries, redaction checks, training modules and vendor reviews (Sonoma County Administrative Policy 9‑6 on Artificial Intelligence).

The development process mirrored the County's implementation steps: consult the Information Systems Department's risk assessment, restrict prompts to allowable uses (drafting, summarizing, spreadsheet work, coding help), and require Information Security Officer and County Counsel review before tool adoption - practices documented in the Board packet for File #2024‑0802 and reflected in the authorized‑tools approach (Sonoma County Administrative Policy 9‑6 Legistar record for File 2024‑0802).

Prompts were also stress‑tested with safe, anonymized examples - one ISD test had ChatGPT analyze stripped phone‑usage data in minutes instead of hours - to show how careful preprocessing and review turn AI from a risky novelty into a practical, auditable assistant.

Item	Detail
File #	2024-0802
Approval Date	9/10/2024
Key Compliance Steps	ISO & County Counsel review; risk assessment; authorized tools list

“We are on the cusp of the artificial intelligence revolution, and we understand the opportunities we have to harness this technology to realize efficiency and cost-savings for the public… At the same time, there is a lot that we still don't know about AI, which is why we need to proceed with caution in a secure and ethical manner.” - Supervisor David Rabbitt

Department heads need a one‑page, plain‑language AI Use Summary that maps Policy 9‑6's guardrails to everyday tasks: list approved activities (emails, reports, spreadsheets, code help, summaries), a clear prohibition on submitting confidential/PII, and an instruction to treat prompts and outputs as potentially public records with mandatory fact‑checking and transparent attribution - language that mirrors the County's policy and makes the “no confidential inputs” rule unavoidable (Sonoma County Administrative Policy 9‑6 on Artificial Intelligence).

The summary should also tell teams how to request vendor or tool approval, require training and signed acknowledgment, and flag when County Counsel or the Information Security Officer must review a use case; a crisp example - “do not paste case details into an AI prompt; redact or omit identifying data” - helps the point land.

For quick local context and public commentary on these tradeoffs, link the summary to local news coverage so staff see how permitted uses and limits play out in practice (Press Democrat coverage of Sonoma County's AI policy), and close with one sentence directing readers to the County's authorized‑tools process for submitting new AI requests.

“We are on the cusp of the artificial intelligence revolution, and we understand the opportunities we have to harness this technology to realize efficiency and cost-savings for the public… At the same time, there is a lot that we still don't know about AI, which is why we need to proceed with caution in a secure and ethical manner.” - Supervisor David Rabbitt

The one‑page summary should be posted and distributed to all department heads and linked from internal guidance so teams can follow the authorized‑tools process when submitting new AI requests.

Prompt: Prepare a Public Records Disclosure Review - craft a short, actionable checklist that treats any AI prompt, transcript, or output as potentially disclosable under the California Public Records Act and California case law: first, determine whether the item meets the CPRA's definition of a “public record” and narrow the scope of any request per the California Public Records Act FAQs - official guidance; second, redact or omit personal, confidential, or exempt information before using it with any model (do not paste case notes or unredacted PII into prompts); third, capture provenance - the tool name, provider, and model/version - and require an AI‑use statement so reviewers can confirm whether content is AI‑generated, a step that dovetails with California's new transparency rules (covered providers must offer detection tools and support manifest/latent disclosures under SB 942); fourth, route borderline or exempt materials to County Counsel or the Information Security Officer before release.

Emphasize the “so what?”: one unredacted chat line can become a public record, so the review should make release risk visible, document decisions, and flag required legal or technical mitigations before any disclosure.

Authority	Key Point	Effective Date
California Public Records Act (CPRA)	Public access presumption; exemptions; narrow requests recommended	1968 (statute)
SB 942 (California AI Transparency Act)	Requires detection tools and manifest/latent AI disclosures; enforcement by AG/local counsel	Operative Jan 1, 2026
AB 2013 (Training Data Transparency)	Developers must disclose training dataset information on public sites	Effective Jan 1, 2026

Prompt: “Redact sensitive data in case notes” should give an AI clear rules rooted in HIPAA and CJIS practice: instruct models to never receive unredacted PHI/PII, identify and permanently remove the 18 HIPAA identifiers (names, addresses, SSNs, medical record numbers, birthdates, photos, device identifiers, etc.), and apply a documented de‑identification method (Safe Harbor or Expert Determination) per HHS guidance (HHS de‑identification guidance for HIPAA compliance).

Build mandatory steps into the prompt: (1) pre‑process notes to mask/remove identifiers, (2) run an automated redaction pass with logging, (3) record who redacted and why, (4) run a human verification and periodic audit, and (5) securely dispose or restrict originals.

Use tools certified for HIPAA/CJIS workflows and avoid desktop-only solutions that miss metadata - modern platforms advertise OCR, audit logs and automated redaction to reduce human error and scale work that would otherwise take weeks (Redactable HIPAA redaction best practices and automated redaction tools) and ensure law‑enforcement evidence meets CJIS expectations (VIDIZMO guidance on CJIS redaction requirements).

The “so what?” is stark: missed identifiers can trigger multi‑tier OCR penalties (individual violations can reach tens of thousands), so bake redaction, provenance capture, and auditability into every AI prompt and workflow.

Best Practice	Action
Consistent process	Standardize identification, redaction, and verification steps
Secure disposal	Destroy originals or restrict access when retention ends
Redaction log	Record who redacted what and when
Regular audits	Periodic reviews of outputs and tools
Use reliable tools	AI/OCR redaction with audit trails and metadata removal

“The Hathr AI team was able to help us write new prompts to redact HIPAA related data, and speed up whole new workflows – [Hathr AI] turned a week of work into about 20 minutes.”

When the Sonoma County Water Agency wants a community newsletter - think The Current - this prompt should steer an AI toward safe, transparent drafting: request concise, bilingual copy for a monthly audience, forbid any insertion of confidential or case‑specific data, and require an explicit AI‑use line (tool name, model/version, and staff reviewer) so readers and records officers can see provenance and compliance with Policy 9‑6; the county policy both permits generative tools for everyday writing and insists that prompts and outputs be treated as potentially public records and fact‑checked before publication (Sonoma County Administrative Policy 9‑6).

Tie the newsletter subscription and archive link to existing outreach channels - Sonoma Water's “The Current” has monthly English/Spanish issues - so readers can verify updates and corrections, and build a short internal checklist into the prompt (redact first, identify source documents, cite human reviewer, list authorized tool) to turn a time‑saving draft into an auditable public communication (Sonoma Water e-news / The Current).

Item	Note
Agency	Sonoma County Water Agency (covered by Policy 9‑6)
Newsletter	The Current - monthly, English/Spanish; subscribe and archive available

“We are on the cusp of the artificial intelligence revolution, and we understand the opportunities we have to harness this technology to realize efficiency and cost-savings for the public… At the same time, there is a lot that we still don't know about AI, which is why we need to proceed with caution in a secure and ethical manner.” - Supervisor David Rabbitt

Prompt: create an accessible parent-notification template that starts with plain‑English headlines, lists the preferred delivery channels, and provides ready‑made translations and interpreter options so families never miss critical school news; link the template to the Santa Rosa City Schools Translation Services page for contact and procedural detail (Santa Rosa City Schools Translation Services - Contact & Procedures) and bake in proven steps from K‑12 best practice: identify target languages, use professional translation or a vetted Translation Management System, build a glossary of recurring school terms, provide both written translations and trained interpreter support for meetings, and include a feedback loop for families to report unclear language (the NEA vignette of an Afghan father who received mostly English/Spanish materials shows how a single language gap can leave a parent “at a loss,” so the template must make access tangible).

For pragmatic help on quality and workflow - glossaries, delivery plans, and iterative review - link to practical guidance on translating parent notifications (K‑12 Guide: Translating Parent Notifications - 5 Tips for Schools), and always include a clear line for families to request interpretation or translated materials.

Contact	Detail
District Translation Supervisor	Daniel Bigelow - 707-890-3800 x 80424
Address	110 Stony Point Road, Suite 210, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Policy	District prohibits discrimination; see Non‑Discrimination / Title IX contacts listed on Translation Services page

“If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.” - Nelson Mandela

Sonoma County Human Resources can use a focused prompt to generate modular, role‑based training on Administrative Policy 9‑6 that turns dense rules into bite‑size lessons for staff, supervisors, and vendors: short modules should map to the policy's core sections - purpose & scope, roles & responsibilities, limited uses (no confidential/PII), transparency and public‑records treatment of prompts/outputs, required fact‑checking, vendor due diligence, and the signed acknowledgment and enforcement steps that carry disciplinary consequences; link each module to the official policy text so learners can review authoritative language and the county's authorized‑tools process (Sonoma County Administrative Policy 9‑6 on Artificial Intelligence) and include an implementation checklist drawn from the Board packet (File 2024‑0802) so departments know how to request tool approval and ISO/Counsel review (Sonoma County File 2024‑0802 Legistar record for AI policy implementation); a memorable training moment: emphasize that one unredacted chat line can become a public record, so practical exercises must teach redaction, provenance capture, and where to escalate ambiguous cases.

Module	Key Content
1. Policy Essentials	Purpose, scope, annual review
2. Roles & Responsibilities	User, Dept Head, ISD, ISO, County Counsel
3. Safe Use	Permitted tasks, no confidential/PII, fact‑check
4. Transparency & Records	AI attribution, CPRA risks, provenance logging
5. Vendor Due Diligence	Risk assessment, authorized tools, contract safeguards
6. Compliance & Acknowledgment	Signed acknowledgment, adverse actions, training audit

“We are on the cusp of the artificial intelligence revolution, and we understand the opportunities we have to harness this technology to realize efficiency and cost-savings for the public… At the same time, there is a lot that we still don't know about AI, which is why we need to proceed with caution in a secure and ethical manner.” - Supervisor David Rabbitt

Prompt for the County Information Security Officer (ISO): use a tight, checklist‑style vendor due diligence prompt that turns Administrative Policy 9‑6's requirements into a reproducible review - start by importing the Information Systems Department risk assessment template referenced in the policy and Legistar record, then verify data access boundaries (what data the tool will see), confirm the vendor will not use County data to train models, require encryption, role‑based access controls, retention and secure deletion clauses, breach notification timelines, and clear audit/logging and provenance hooks so every prompt and output is traceable; demand contractual safeguards (right to audit, indemnities, data processing addenda) and County Counsel review, and ensure the vendor demonstrates compliance with HIPAA/CJIS/CCPA as required by the policy.

Add bias and accuracy testing and an employee‑engagement step per California's generative AI procurement guidance so technical checks match operational use. Remember the “so what?”: even a vague “service improvement” clause can open the door to training on County data, so the checklist must make that risk a dealbreaker and produce an auditable approval trail (Sonoma County Administrative Policy 9‑6 on AI, Sonoma County Legistar File 2024‑0802, California generative AI procurement guidelines).

Checklist Item	Required Action
Risk Assessment	Use ISD template; ISO review
Data Access & Protection	List data types; encryption & RBAC
Vendor Data Usage	Contractually prohibit training on County data
Security Assessment	Pen test, SOC reports, ISO security review
Legal Safeguards	County Counsel review; DPA/indemnities/right to audit
Bias & Accuracy Testing	Evidence of testing per CA procurement guidance
Provenance & Logging	Audit logs, model/version disclosure, retention policy

Communications staff can use a tight, reusable prompt that asks an AI to draft a press release but then runs the copy through a two‑stage verification: automated extraction of factual claims (names, dates, numbers, policy citations) and a mandatory human fact‑check before publication, reflecting Sonoma County's insistence that AI outputs be reviewed and treated as potential public records (Sonoma County AI policy coverage).

Use AI for language tasks - headlines, plain‑English summaries, bilingual drafts - but never for sole verification: follow PRSA's four steps (check sources, fact‑check everything, proofread, trust your instincts) as an editorial checklist (PRSA guidelines for ensuring AI content accuracy).

Borrow a practical pattern from newsroom pilots - have the tool flag low‑confidence claims and surface source links so editors can triage alerts, as in Der Spiegel's prototype - because the smallest slip (a misspelled scoreboard or a surreal five‑wheeled car in an image) is the detail readers remember and the error that erodes trust (Der Spiegel AI fact‑checking prototype case study).

“If we use it responsibly and ethically, it has the potential to streamline workflows and enhance productivity.” - Nikita Roy

Prompting the Community Development Commission to “Analyze policy options for using AI in permitting” should ask a model to weigh concrete tradeoffs - streamlined intake, multilingual FAQs and automated routing versus public‑records risk, PII exposure, and vendor training on municipal data - and produce a short, auditable decision memo that maps each option to Sonoma County's guardrails (no confidential inputs, mandatory fact‑checking, ISO/County Counsel review, and an authorized‑tools path).

Use the healthcare triage playbook as a useful analogy: vendors report rapid, accurate routing (Clearstep's virtual triage advertises 1–3 minute assessments and >95% triage accuracy), suggesting a permit “triage” could flag missing items and route applications faster, while also requiring human review to prevent over‑ or under‑triage.

The prompt should require a vendor due‑diligence checklist, a redaction/preprocessing step for any applicant PII, provenance logging, and pilot metrics (time‑to‑route, reviewer overrides, multilingual coverage) so leaders can see the “so what?” in data: small, automated triage gains can visibly unclog clerks' inboxes and reshape daily workflows.

For local context and implementation ideas, compare examples of conversational/document AI for Santa Rosa services and align recommendations with Policy 9‑6.

“We are on the cusp of the artificial intelligence revolution, and we understand the opportunities we have to harness this technology to realize efficiency and cost-savings for the public… At the same time, there is a lot that we still don't know about AI, which is why we need to proceed with caution in a secure and ethical manner.” - Supervisor David Rabbitt

For Northwest Prep Charter School, a practical prompt pairs classroom AI guidance with a student‑privacy checklist that reflects California's K‑12 priorities: specify allowable tasks (administrative help, rubric drafting, lesson scaffolds and differentiated supports), prohibit unredacted student data in any prompt, require human‑in‑the‑loop review and provenance logging, and link every pilot to district/vendor approval and the state guidance.

Use the Southern Regional Education Board's “Guidance for the Use of AI in the K‑12 Classroom” (Apr 2025) for safeguards around bias and data privacy, align with the California Department of Education guidance summarized in the State AI Guidance compendium, and tie the checklist to the school's contact/approval pathway so pilots are auditable and families can request accommodations via the Northwest Prep site.

Emphasize the classroom payoff: AI for quick rubric and lesson drafting can ease clerical load so teachers focus on relationships and judgment - while built‑in opt‑outs, translation support, and vendor vetting keep student privacy front and center.

SREB guidance for the use of AI in K‑12 classrooms, California state AI guidance for K‑12 schools (AI Resources), Northwest Prep Charter School official homepage

"not as a threat to learning, but as a powerful tool to help teachers do their jobs more effectively and to fight one of the greatest challenges in our profession: burnout."

Implementation in Santa Rosa should follow Sonoma County's clear playbook: use AI where it speeds routine work but never at the cost of privacy, accuracy, or legal exposure - official policy language (approved 9/10/2024) makes the rules simple and enforceable (Sonoma County AI Policy 9‑6 (Administrative Policy)).

Practical steps for departments: redact or exclude PII before prompting, require human fact‑checks and an AI‑attribution line on public communications, run vendor due‑diligence and ISO/Counsel reviews for any new tool, and rely on an authorized‑tools list so approval is auditable (Sonoma County File 2024‑0802 Legistar record).

Those controls turn AI from a risky novelty into a measurable productivity gain - small, safe pilots (triage automation, bilingual FAQs, draft newsletters) can unclog clerks' inboxes and free staff for judgment‑heavy work, provided training and signed acknowledgments accompany every rollout; for teams that need hands‑on prompt practice and compliance-minded workflows, targeted training like Nucamp's AI Essentials for Work gives a 15‑week, workplace‑focused path to doing this right (Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus (15-week workplace AI bootcamp)).

Remember the sharp “so what?”: one unredacted chat line can become a public record, so policies without redaction, provenance, and review are risk, not relief.

Key Implementation Step	Why it matters
Never submit confidential/PII	Prevents data leakage and legal exposure
Fact‑check & attribute AI outputs	Maintains accuracy and public transparency
ISO & County Counsel review	Ensures security and contractual safeguards
Authorized‑tools + training	Creates an auditable, repeatable adoption path

“We are on the cusp of the artificial intelligence revolution, and we understand the opportunities we have to harness this technology to realize efficiency and cost-savings for the public… At the same time, there is a lot that we still don't know about AI, which is why we need to proceed with caution in a secure and ethical manner.” - Supervisor David Rabbitt